Prakash Tatia, J. - (1.) NONE present for the respondents after service, therefore, heard learned Counsel for the petitioners as notices were issued for final disposal of the writ petition.
(2.) IT appears that on 02.05.2007, an application under Order 7R.11 CPC was heard and decided by the trial Court and on the same day, the defendants ' right to file written statement was closed. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners submitted written statement on next date and also submitted an application that petitioners were under impression that the case was fixed for the written statement in usual course after the dismissal of the application filed under Order 7R.11 CPC. The petitioners ' application for taking on record the written statement was dismissed by the trial Court vide impugned order dt. 24.09.2007. The petitioners submitted that a lenient view may be taken and the petitioners ' written statement which has already been submitted be taken on record.
(3.) SINCE on 02.05.2007 application filed under Order 7R.11 CPC was dismissed and, therefore, there might have been reason for defendants to believe that case was fixed for filing written statement, therefore, in this situation, the Court should have taken a lenient view and could have taken on record the written statement filed by the defendant on record.;